JUDGMENT

R. K. PATRA, J. — The point involved in this writ peti¬tion is plain and simple, but an account of past events and developments making his story cannot be lost sight of. The sum and substance of the relief claimed in this writ petition is that the State Government (opposite party No.1) should be directed to accept the recommendations of the Chahar Committee in its report dated 11.7.2001 at Annexure-2 for grant of mining lease (Chrome Ore) for an area of 43.579 hectares in favour of the petitioners. Above recommendations adverse to the petitioners and in favour of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited (opposite party No.3), the petitioners have sought for quashing of the relevant orders.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that this writ petition was earlier disposed of as infructious by this Court by order dated 2.8.2002. It was so ordered because the State Government’s recommendation to reserve the area in question in favour of the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited was turned down by the Govern¬ment of India in the Ministry of Coal and Mines (Department of Mines). Later, an application was filed on behalf of the peti¬tioners (vide Misc.Case No. 7683 of 2002) contending that the prayer made in the writ petition (vide paragraphs-II)(a) and (b) still survives for consideration and, as such, the entire writ petition could not have been dismissed as infructuous. Upon hearing counsel for parties, this Court found that there was substance in the above contention of the petitioners and by order dated 25.11.2002, restored the entire writ petition for further hearing.

3. Petitioner No.1 is a public limited company which is situated in the district of Srikakulam in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner No.2 is one of the Directors of petitioner No.1. For the sake of convenience, they are hereinafter referred to as the petitioner.

Case of the petitioner is that it is engaged inter alia in manufacture of high carbon ferro-chrome and is one of the export-oriented industries in the field. It needs chrome ore as the basic raw material for manufacture of high carbon ferro-chrome. It does not possess any mining lease of chrome ore. Its present production capacity is 25,000 M.Ts. whereas the total consumption of chrome ore is 62,500 A.Ts. On 5.9.1995, the petitioner applied to the State Government of Orissa for of mining lease over an area of 259.00 hectares in the Sukinda Valley in the district of Jajpur.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions of parties it would be relevant to look back at the history leading to the recommendation of grant of mining lease in favour of the peti¬tioner.

Sukinda Valley bordering the districts of Jajpur and Dhenka¬nal in the State of Orissa is known for its rich chromite re¬sources in India. Almost 80% of chromite production of the coun¬try is from this area. The grants/refusals of chromite mining leases have been the subject matter of continuous litigations between the State of Orissa on one hand and different leases on the other. In the year 1991, the litigation took a different turn when TISCO applied for renewal of its mining lease over an area of 1261.476 hectares to the State Government. Renewal was however granted to it over an area of 406.00 hectares only. From the balance area of 855.476 hectares, 419.181 hectares were leased out to four other applicants. As TISCO was not given lease in respect of the entire area applied for, it filled writ petitions bearing OJC Nos. 7729 of 1993 and 4701 of 1994 in this Court. The other applicants also filed separate writ petitions challenging the grant of lease in favour of TISCO. A Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 4.4.1995, to which one of us (R.K. Patra, J.) was a party, disposed of the writ petitions (vide 82(1996) C.L.T. 797) by directing the Central Government to reconsider afresh all the applications after giving an opportunity of hear¬ing to them. Against the said judgment, the TISCO and four other applicants filed Civil ‘Appeal No. 9454 of